Four Documentaries on Middle East Political History

The
PBS produced documentary,The 50 Years War: Israel
and the Arabs
(1998) is a five hour series that examines the volitile historical conditions
and events that have surrounded the nation of Israel since its founding in the
years after World War Two. The film was directed by David Ash and runs for 300
minutes. One of the most crucial issues about the film as with any film dealing
with the same subject matter is whether or not there is any kind of
propogandistic side to the movie. And, if there is a propoganidistic side to
the film, does it favor the Israeli or Arab side of the conflict. The first
quality of the fiom that refveals itself is that the filmmakers have definitely
atttempted to present a balanced and historical account of events without
taking a particular side. That said, it
is still possible for an observer with a particular perspective to see the fim
as biased in either direction. This is, in fact, one of the msot intersting
aspects of a documentary of thiws nature: that it is virually impopssible to
rpesent an entirely objective statement of historical facts.

Also
interesting is the film’s use of a non-linear type of perspective to show the linear
progression of events. The documentary is comprised of interrviews with elading
figures of the Arab and Israeli conflict, including Benjamin Netanyahu, Hafez
al-Assad, Bill clinton, and Yasir Arafat among many others. This lends an air
of comprehensiveness to the filma nd also helps to bring out a feeling
proportion and balance. The documentary attempts to show not only all of the
various “sides” of the conflict, but also the various levels that exists within
these sides. So, for example, while the film includes interviews with notable
heads of states such as those mentioned above, it also includes interviews with
leaders of guerillafactions, field officers in the armies, and intelligence
agents. The conflict between the Israelis and Arabs is therefore given as much
of a human face as is possible by showing the various roles that were played
throughout different stratas of society.

In
terms of the linear history that is conveyed in the film, the documentary
begins with the U.N sanctioned partitioning of palestine in 1947 and continued
through the war for Israeli statehood which was achieved in 1967. From there,
the film recounts the evolution and growing influence of the Palestine
Liberastion Organization. The final episodes of the documentary include an
account of the Yom Kipper War, the Palestinian uprising in the 1980’s and
accounts of teh various ttampts at peace agreemetns including the Camp David
agreement and the Oslo Agreement. Due to the fact that the documentary examines
both the violent warfare and intricate diplomacy that have been associated with
the Arab-Israeli conflict ove rthe past decades, it is an accurate statement to
say that the film is objective in its vision of the conflict’s range and
impact. in other words, the film in no way elevates the aremed conflict about
tye diplomatic and political struggle or vice-versa. Instead, the film attempts
to show how violent conflict, political struggle, diplomacy and economics are
intrivately entwined over the fifty year struggle between the Arab and Israeli
states.

From
a technical standpoint, the fim’s comprehensive approach is effective but
slightly overwhelming. As mentioned previously, the desire to repsent the
subject in an objective way seems to have been one of the guiding principles of
the film’s composition. For example, when the film shows an account of Arab
armies overrunning the Israeli borders during the early years of israel’s
sovereignty, the story is presented, in part, by Yitzhak
Navon, who is a former Israeli President. during this segment, the narrator of
the documentary mentions that many Jewish civilians were killed by Arab
soldiers. In other words, the film seems to be deliberately attempting to show
a sympathetic view toward the Israelis while simultaneously casting a negative
light on the Arabs. Whether or not such a segment in the film is simply a
consequence of the wide-scope of the film or whether it reflects a desire to
slant the documentary toward a certain perspective is debatable. Either way,
this segment shows the technical difficulty of dealing with the long
Israeli-Arab conflict in a film.

Similarly, a person who was looking
at the documentary to find signs of bias toward the Arab side of the conflict
might cite the film’s portrayal of the growth and activities of the PLO. For
example, the documentary downplays the role of the PLO as a pseudo-state
particularly in regard to the PLO’s role in Lebanon during the 1970’s. The
documentary includes accounts of the PLO’s bombings of Israeli civilians but
seems to avoid portraying the group as a terrorist organization. The overall
impact of these two aspects of the coverage of the PLO is to “soften” the PLO’s
historical impact and its influence over both military and political conditions
in the Middle East. That said, the documentary actually functions as an
objective record of the many of the most significant events and players in the
Arab-Israeli conflict. Obviously, since the appearance of bias in the film can
be argued form either the Arab or Israeli perspective, the apparent biases in
the film are due more to the massive scope and breadth of the historical
material and data than to the intentions of the filmmakers to create
propaganda.

For this reason it seems obvious
that the film is an outstanding resource for teachers, students, historians
and anyone else who is interested in
learning about the Fifty Years War. The film is applicable to any perspective
on the conflict, whether intended to emphasize the political or military side
of the events. The sheer scope of the film and its attention to historical
detail and diverse voices is enough to ensure that its is a worthwhile viewing
experience. However, as mentioned previously, the length and scope of the film
may prove to be an obstacle to some viewers. There is no way to further
streamline the material, obviously, without losing the degree of objectivity
and historical completeness that are part of the film’s power and appeal. Due to this fact, it would seem as though the
film should be rated quite highly as a record of the diplomatic and political
history of events.

The shortcoming of the film, in my
opinion, is that it reveals next to nothing about the social and cultural
context of the conflict. There are no real stories of regular citizens and the
way that the conflict has shaped and impacted their lives, furthermore, there
is not enough cultural history and evidence offered to clearly define the
reason for the continued conflict between the Arab and Israeli people. That is not to say that the film
fails to provide a historical context and even motivation for the conflict,
simply that the conflict is not illustrated with cultural and social materials.
Even though this is the case, the film is still highly commendable for its
bringing together so much archival footage and evidence to place the events of
the conflict in logical context. The subject matter is deeply complex and the film
is energetically comprehensive which is a very good combination.

Documentary – Promises (2001)

The
film Promises (2001) was directed by
B.Z. Goldberg and examines the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by interviewing a
handful of children from both sides. Goldberg, who also appears in the film, is
careful to construct a film that allows the innate emoitnal impact of the
children to shine through. The obvious tension in the film is between the
innocence of the children and the gravity of poltical, social, and military
tension that is part of the world around them. Obviously, the native innocence
of the chidren is contrasted against the violence and complex world of adults
in order to show the essential superiority of the world of innocence. The film
seems to be suggesting that, if children on either side of the conflict can
learn to play together and understand one another, then their example should
lead the way for the rest of humanity. Although the film focuses on only seven
children, the inference given by the film is that these children represent the
larger population, or venthe universal experience of all individuals who grow
up in a war-zone.

Many viewers might find the premise of the
film sightly disturbing because it is such an immediate emotional topic.
However, this is precisely the intention of the filmmaker. The use of children
to both catch the ineterest of the audience and to gain audience sympathy is a
device that is an essential part of the film. This is because what Goldberg is
actually trying to do in the film is to get each viewer of the film to get in
touch with thier own innocent satte of their own vision of child-like hope and
accepatnce. This is an overtly romantic notion and one which seems deliberately
intended to try to counterbalance some of the
long-term cynicism that has been associated with the conflict and with
numerous attempts to resolve the conflict on peaceful terms. The presence of the children in the film brings to immediate
attention the question of the future and also brings into sharp focus the most
devestating cost of the conflict which is beyond merely material loss, and
extends to the loss of innocence and childhood potential on both sides of the
conflict. Rather than probe into the abstract poltical and culutural
motivations for the long-term conflict, the film hones in on the specific,
personal experiences of the children and their familes. This enables the viewer
to see that the larger conflict in the story is actually comprised of
individual emotional and familial responses to real-world events, rather than
abstract religion or ideology.

As
such, the film is best understood as an emotional plea for understanding the
human toll of the conflict. In fact, the film seems to wilfully dismiss the
underlying political and ideological aspects of the conflict as if to suggest
that these ideas have become so complex and difficult that a resolution through
those lines is unlikely. What is a potneital resolution to the conflict is to
stoop the process of passing the violence and conflict along from one
generatiion to the next. This is shown in the film basically by portraying the
children as the heart of each scoiety. therefore their innocence whihc is
already being chipped away even at such a youong age, rpersents the loss on
both sides of the conflict, and bvy expotension to evryone who is involved at
any level at all.

The
film shows a definite arc from portraying the childlike perspective of the kids
in the film to a “contaminated” vision that is shown to be broiling in each of
the kids. For example, one of the Jewish boys shown in the film remarks that
the settlement that he lives in is one where people hate Arabs. The boy, whose
name is Moishe, rides his bike in a Palestinian
neighborhood as though he is defying their independence. This sense of
detachment and even defiance is shown even more clearly when the boy says that
he hopes the Israeli military’s firing range outside of the village will have a
“bad” shot which accidentally hits an Arab.

A similar effect is created by a
scene on the Palestinian side of the story when a grandmother and her grandson
visit the destroyed house of their family. The house was turned into rubble by
the Israeli army in 1949. As the
grandmother shows the child the paperwork and keys that go to the house, the
boy insists that he will see it rebuilt someday along with the entire village.
What this scene shows is that the sense of struggle that is felt on both sides
of the conflict is personal rather than merely ideological. This approach to showing
the conflict must be seen as the most humanistic perspective that could be
brought to view the conflict. As such, Goldberg also escapes any charge of
sentimentality despite his use of children as a subject for the film because
scenes such as the two described above show how sentimentality and
“group-think” are actually associated with one another in the context of the
conflict.

It is, in fact, the combination of
sentimentality and conformity that actually give continuing fuel to the fire of
the conflict. The film can be seen as being made-up of three sections. The
first section is the introduction of the children and the basic circumstances.
The second section is the exploration of how the historical events are based in
deeply personal experiences as shown by the immersion of the children in the
more weighty issues of the conflict. The third segment of the film is one where
Goldberg begins to appear more frequently in front of the camera. He also
begins to voice his ideas about what might be the result of trying to bring
children from opposite sides of the conflict together. This potential underscores the basic theme of
the film which is the way in which the innocence of the past and present are
being sacrificed right along with the hope for the future in order to keep the
conflict and escalation of violence in full
motion.

In some regards the film is also an
attempt to put a dent in the viewer’s own sense of innocence because it is
likely that many viewers of the documentary will expect that the children, once
exposed to one another, would readily discard their differences and learn to
relate at a more pure and unaffected level. In fact, the conclusion that is
expressed by the film is almost the opposite: which is that the children on
both sides of the conflict have been so indoctrinated by the propaganda on both
sides that their status as innocents in the conflict is specious. The viewer
can see clearly that children on both sides of the conflict have been initiated
into the violence and hatred and, in fact, their self-identities are to some
terrible extent based on their experience of the conflict. The importance of
family, culture, and peer-acceptance all play a role in shaping the successive
participation of each generation in the conflict.

It’s difficult to say which aspect
of the film is more tragic, the fact that the children are portrayed as being
so heavily indoctrinated into war and conflict, or the fact that the conflict’s
greatest toll seems to be on generations who may or may not even understand the
original historical basis for the violence and hate. These ironies are actually
articulated with great skill by Goldberg
in the film. He is able to keep the emphasis of the film on an emotional level
while simultaneously making a very deft intellectual statement. That statement
is that the origins of any conflict and reasons for it are of little
consequence when measured against the human cost of the conflict. the cost
involves not only the loss of life and property, but the loss of humanity. The
fact that the youth of multiple generations have been “sacrificed” to the
ongoing war between the Israelis and Palestinians is the greatest tragedy that
can be seen as associated with the conflict. This is because the loss of youth
and innocence that is conveyed in the film is symbolic of the loss of future
hope that a resolution to the conflict will ever be attained. This is obvious due to the fact the the
children of the Middle East are not only
symbolically associated with the future of the region, but the literal
inheritors of the region and the associated conflict.

Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People

Sut Jhally’s film: Reel Bad
Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People (2006) examines the way in which
Arabs are portrayed in Western culture and specifically how Arabs have been
shown by Hollywood films throughout many decades in America. The film is
narrated by Jack Shaheen who also wrote the book on whihc
the documentary is based. One of the themes of the film is the treatement of Arabs
by Hollywood, while another one of the themes of the film is the theme of
stereotypes in general and that way in which the urge to create stereotypes
about all races and not merely Arabs is a defining characteristic of Western
culture. In this sense, the film can be seen as a critcism of Westernb society,
but in a larger sense, the film is a criticism of prejudice and cultural
chauvanism in any manifestation.

The
film traces the practice of prejudice against Arabs in American cinema all the
way back to the early days of silent movies. The film follows this early use of
stereotyping and shows how it has maintained a continuous presence in Aerican
movies right up to the present day. The narrator of the film instructs the
audience to understand that the stereotypes and prejudices about Arabs that are
present in American films are not an outgrowth of cultural understanding and
objective realism, but a mean-spiritied and deliberate attempt to slander the
Arab races. The usual ways in which Arabs are stereotyped in American cinema is
as badits, rogues, belly-dancers, thieves, and corrupt shieks. There are litte
to no depictions of “good” Arabs in American films. Arab women are almost
alwyas shown as supplicant slaves to their male overlords and many young Arab men
are portrayed as rifle-weilding terrorists in American movies.

One
of the key things to keep in mind regarding the film is that it shows that the
prejudices that are exhibited against Arabs in American films are not only
intentional and designed to inspire fear and hatred against Arabs by
Westerners, but that these delinerate attempts to create racial prejudice and
racially based tension are actually effective. In other words, a greater degree
of racial hostility and racial intolerance between Arabs and Westerners has
been established due to the influence of stereotyping. This means that the film
is actually exploring a very important historical issue which is the way that
racial prejudice can be manufactured, or at least intensified, through the use of
media and propoganda. The question that
Shaheen puts in the mind of the audience is whther or not the racial
stereotyping is designed for a specific purpose and if so, what purpopse?

The
answer to tyhat questiojn is the basis for one theme of the film. One thought
offered in the film is that the dispariging idenitty of Arabs as portrayed in
American cinema is not only an influence on Western ideas, bit on Arabs’
self-perception. The stereotypes and prejudices that are disclosed in the films
are evidently intended to diminish the humanity of the Arabs by showing them as
greedy, lazy, and ignorant. While reviewing some of the prejudiced depictions
of Arabs in Hollywood films the film’s narrator suggests that the motivation
for the distorted portrayal of Arabs in Western films is to a large part based
on politics. That is to say, the films are articulating a political agenda,
rather than expressing an innate suspicion of dislike of Arabs that exists in
Western society. This s a highly significant observation because it shows that
teh conflict, prejudice, and racism that is extant between Arabs and Westerners
is to a very large extent being manufactured through propoganda and media
influecne rather than coming out of a natural sense of racial conflict between
two cultures.

One
of the conclusions that is therefore reached by the film is that Hollywood and
Washington DC are actually so deeply connedcted aas to serve each other’s
interests completely. This might be suprising news to many Americans who
probably belive that their media is “free” and created primarily for the
purpose of making money. If, in fact, the primary purpose of certain stylistic
conventyions in Hollywood movies, such as its portrayal of Arabs, is for
political rather than cultural or economic purpposes, then how many other
conventions and ideas that are shown in Hollywood films follow the same
pattern? Such ideas can be regarded as
the true intention of the film as the evidence is shown to teh viewer that the
connection between American politics and Hollywood stereotypes is far from
accidental.

Some
of the steretypes that are examined in the film show a nefarious quality when
they are viewed in connection to the kind of foreign policy that America has
exhibited toward Arab nations over time. For example, the depiction of Arabs as
being “pre-technological” and often shown with camels and tents, wearing
turbans and holding women as slvoes portrays the Arab as a primitive, almost subhuman figure. The danger of thsi kind of stereotyping is
not only that it distorts the reality of Arab cultures but that it effectively
creates a prejudiced reflex, almost an unconscious processing, of distrust adn
dislike of Arabs by Westerners. The fact is that Hollywood films have such a
significant impact over the conscious beliefs of the American population, that
the constant portrayal of Arabs as primitive and threatening is a recipe to
create racial prejudice against Arabs among Americans.

In
reacting to the film as an American, there are several components of response.
First, there is the shock of realizing that Hollywood and Washington D.C. seem
to be without much doubt collaborators in the service of a shared agenda. That
agenda seems to be to use the medium of film as a way to direct adn shape the
racial beliefs and persepctives of an entire nation. Another aspect of the
reaction to the film that comes with viewing the film as an American is the feeling
of “discovery” that comes from beginning to see the pattern of portrayal that
promotes racism against Arabs. As such, te film is a bittersweet experience for
a typical American viewer. Probably, most Americans walk around beiveing that
their films and media are without a speific governmetn agends. However, as
shown in Reel Bad Arabs nothing could
be further from the truth. Yet another apsect of responding tot he film as an
American is a feeling of anger, because the film helps one to realize the way in
which fiom has been used as a medium of control and propoganda by the
powers-that-be.

The reaction of horror that I felt —
personally — to the film came from realizing that so much of the real-world
prejudice, toture, murder, and persecution of Arabs by Westerners is as a
result of the kind of prejudicial programming and propaganda that was
demonstrated in the documentary. Since the film was careful to show that the
prejudicial portrayals of Arabs in American films was part of children’s
programming ans well as adult programming it really seems to be that there is a
“brainwashing” agenda happening in reggard to creating racial tension between
Arabs and Westerners.

The
film offers little in the weay of proposed soultions to the rampant prejudice
that is being coded into American moives. The best way to approach the proboem,
according to the film, seems to be to simply raise awareness about the
propogandastic practices. Maybe, just as
the prejudiced films helped to create real-world prejudice, authentic media
about Arab cultures and Arab people can helpt heal the wound created by the
racially prejudiced media. this still elaves the world, and particularly
America, with a very significant problem which is to find out who,
specifically, is directting the propagand machine of Hollywood, and for what
specific purposes? Since the portrayal of Arabs as threatening and subhuman by
Hollywood has played out in the actual world by way of multi0ple wars with
millions of deaths, it seems like it might be a good idea for the American
people to look behind the curtain and demand to know who is accountable for the
racial propoganda that is being served to them as innocent entertainment.

TV Documentary Inside Mecca

National Geographic’s TV documentary Inside Mecca brings an intimate
portrayal of both the sacred city and a number of individual Islamic pilgrims
who take part in the Holy days of the Hajj. The film is an exception to many
centuries of tradition where the city of
Mecca and the Hajj were closed to outside audiences and prohibited from being
observed by non-Muslims. One of the first things that it is made clear in the
film is that the Hajj is not an exception to the daily routines of those
million-plus residents of the city, but is, in fact, the reason for daily life in the city. The entire Meccan culture is
based around the Hajj season and consists of either preparing for this time or
recovering from it.

The film shows that Mecca’s history
is inextricably bound to the Hajj and the city’s stature as a sacred place. The
city has been in existence for over one-thousand years. As an important trade
center and religious site, Mecca has occupied a significant and profound status
in relation to the history of the Middle Easy which continues now in modern
times. In terms of geography and
climate, mecca is not a particularly desirable space of land in the Arab
peninsula because it is arid and hot. The lack of precipitation makes modern
agriculture difficult in the area. in the past, simply maintaining an adequate
water supply for the inhabitants of the region was a challenge.

In modern times, it is the season of
the Hajj which allows the Meccan economy to survive. the annual Hajj is
responsible for drawing upwards of 100 million dollars into the region. This is
such an important source of revenue that the Saudi ruling classes also spend at
least 50 million to support the annual Hajj. Therefore, as the movie indicates
quite clearly, the identity of Mecca as a holy place for Muslims is not only a
religious issue; it is an economic (and therefore also political) issue and one
which is indistinguishable from the way mecca functions and is perceived by the
world at large.

The film also takes into account the
long history of Mecca’s mystique. Rather than exploring idea of occult or
religious power that may be associated with Mecca, the film instead addresses
the fact that the city’s ban on on-Muslims is the primary reason for the city’s
mystique particularly among Westerners. In fact, according to the film, the
sacred stature of the area that is now known as Mecca stretches back far into
deep history. Therefore, the exclusion of non-Muslims from the city can be seen
as an extension of previous bans against hunting, tree-cutting or warfare that
have been a part of the region for centuries. The reason that the deep history
of Mecca is so important to understanding its modern stature is because it is
actually the link between modern Islam and Islam’s roots.

This shows that Mecca is not only an
important religious, financial, and political city, but that it is actually a
cultural pillar in that it stands at the center of Islamic society. Most religions have a sacred place or places
that serve as pillars for their theology and history. this is, in effect, how
Mecca functions in relation to Islam but to an even more profound degree. It
is hardly an exaggeration to suggest
that the city of Mecca is, in reality, the “heart” of Islamic culture. One of the more highly effective aspects of
the documentary is to show not only that Mecca is the heart of Islam but that
as such the city exerts a multifaceted influence over Middle Eastern
culture. The typical Western vision of
Mecca as a mystical Holy city tell only part of the true story of the city. The
reality is that Islamic culture is soo deeply tied to mecca in functional ways
as to make the sacredness of the city almost mandatory, regardless of religious
conventions.

Of course separating, or attempting
to separate, Mecca’s role as religious center from its role as a financial or
cultural center is a foolish pursuit. This is precisely the point of the film
which seeks to demonstrate how mecca functions in a way that is decidedly
different than Western cities. It is both traditional and highly modern;
spiritual and political, diverse and exclusionary. The film, in attempting to
depict the city and multiple levels through diverse perspectives, is an
invitation to Westerners not only to partially experience the city and its
history, but to broaden their scope of understanding about Arab culture and the
Islamic religion. In this sense, the film is not only a cultural and historical
view of Mecca, but an active study of comparative culture meant to bring about
a greater depth of mutual understanding.

One thing that may disturb some viewers
of the documentary is that the film concentrates much more on the hajj. If a
particular viewer is expecting to see a detailed history of the city, they may
be disappointed when viewing the film. The concentration on the Hajj is a
strategy meant to show that the religious cultural and day-today lives of
Muslims are intimately tied to each other. Whereas in the West, ideas of urban life, spiritual
life, history, and culture seem to be separated
from one another in the average person’s mind, these aspects are united
in the Islamic world.

In my opinion one of the most
interesting aspects of the film was the fact that it showed multiple pilgrims
to Mecca, including a profile of an American citizen who converted to Islam, as
well as black Muslim and an Asian Muslim. The attempt to present Islam as a
racially diverse faith si not wholly effective but it is surprising to a person
such as myself who, prior to viewing the film, believed that most if not all
Muslims were of Arab descent. Another
highly interesting aspect of the film is the way in which the camera crews are
able to follow individual pilgrims through the various segments of their
respective journeys to Mecca. This allows the documentary to achieve a
first-hand feeling as well as being able
to choose from a range of profiled characters to identify with an individual
pilgrim.

The film actually avoids any kind of
cumbersome details about Islamic philosophy or tradition and gives the viewer
just enough technical information and background to follow the action on the
screen. One thing that might surprises Westerners about Mecca and its pilgrims
is the extreme physical exertion that is part of the experience of the
pilgrims. Without the film, it is
obvious that most Westerners would have no vehicle by which to visually
experience the rites of passages that are associated with the Islamic pilgrims
to Mecca. In final analysis, the movie functions as a sort of visceral “primer” on Mecca, its inhabitants,
and the pilgrims who annually voyage to the city.

For those who hold little or no
previous knowledge about Mecca or Islam, the film will exert a profound,
eye-opening experience. For those who are more familiar with the history of
mecca and Islam, the film will provide a very tactile visual experience of the
city. For the average viewer, the film
will function as introduction to a culture and religious tradition that has for
many centuries only been know by its veneer of secrecy. The film suggests that by divulging the
realities of mecca to Westerners, a further degree of cultural tolerance and
understanding might be achieved.